Server Help

Trash Talk - The M-Theory
Quan Chi2 - Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:04 am
Post subject: The M-Theory
Okay, well I was watching Nova, and the topic was the M-Theory.

Before that episode was the episode about the string theory.

Science doesn't usually scare me, but for some reason, ever since I saw those episodes, I've been getting brief anxiety attacks whenever I think about the universe. Do you know how small we are? Its sick. It makes me think about religon and many of our philosophies that concern the way we were created. Its like I have to take so many things into consideration before trying to figure out the hidden meanings inside of the bible.

So anyway.. In theory, there are branes that collided with each other creating our universe.

According to wikipedia:
Quote:
A (mem)brane is a multidimensional object, usually called p-brane, referring to its spatial dimensionality p — for example, a string is a 1-brane and a flat surface is a 2-brane. There are different forms of branes: the D-branes of zero to nine dimensions that arise in string theory, NS5-branes also in string theory, and M2- and M5-branes in M-theory.


So what do you suppose these branes look like? I mean the ones with nine dimensions. Im trying so hard to picture it. On Nova, there are some nice models showing what more dimensions would look like, but I still can't imagine it.

What would make the branes collide? Are they going to collide again? How big are the branes? Are the branes colorful? What are the branes made of? How long does it take for the branes to collide? Does the universe have a beginning? What about an end? What's outside of our universe? Why are scientists trying to figure out what is outside of the universe, when they haven't even figured out most of what's within it?

I think the whole idea is farfetched. Its a nice thought, but its just way too far ahead of us, if you ask me.
Mine GO BOOM - Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:24 am
Post subject: Re: The M-Theory
Quan Chi2 wrote:
So what do you suppose these branes look like? I mean the ones with nine dimensions. Im trying so hard to picture it.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension

For the other questions, The Elegant Universe is a good book to read. PBS made a series off that as well, but the book goes into much more detail. It is a low-level read, which means you don't need to know any fancy math and it also explains some of 's theories that string theory builds on.

I would recommend some other books, but right now I don't have them near me and I don't remember all their titles.
BDwinsAlt - Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:22 am
Post subject:
Well I do know about the 4th Demision. Why do you think they sing in church? It allows people to cross over into the fourth demesion and feel things for a little while. When Jesus came back to his decicles after the crucifixion he came back in the 6th dimesion. In that one you can eat a fruit inside out. God has his plans for the rapsure and such, so don't worry about anything colliding just yet. His word has to be fulfilled before any of that happens.
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:08 pm
Post subject:
ugh... somebody brings up the topic of other dimensions and how the universe was created...

I'm a strong supporter of the big bang theory, and I have facts (like how all the galaxies are moving away from a center point, with great speed, and much more), but things like other dimensions that einstein started on his plane theory, I'm a little skeptical...

Einstein was a bit of a nut when he started these theories (for the universes sake, he was dying when he was thinking of these things), like how he says nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, what's stopping it? Also that would mean, that if our sun would go out for some reason, it would take more the eight minutes for us to get out of orbit, too bad nobody has found the speed of gravitational force, or I would have something to prove his theory wrong...

Also the plane theory, on how he says all the planets rest on a plane, and if you go thought that plane, you go through a wormhole, and can travel at the speed of light to the next end of the plane... Well, he didn't really know exactly how big the universe was, he point of view only went to our galaxy (maybe even just our solar system, but I doubt that), all the galaxy's aren't straight aligned, the revolve in a 3d manner, and since there moving in different directions, that would mean the plane is stretching out.

Also for quen, if your having some disbelieve about a after life, well our law says matter and/or energy can not be created, well were exactly where did our matter come from, we don't even have to exist if it comes to that. Just don't go into the subject of anti-matter, it might throw you off a bit.

P.s BD, I for your information, we're considered to be the fourth dimension, since we have four points of view (not really three).
Muskrat - Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:17 pm
Post subject:
For your idiotic criticisms of Einstein...

I you'd studied relativity, you would know that as something approaches the speed of light, its mass is multiplied by a factor that approaches infinity. Since the universe is intact(would not be if something had an infinite mass), one would conclude that nothing with a mass is going that fast.

What I don't understand is why you think gravitational force is a particle.
Mine GO BOOM - Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:34 pm
Post subject:
Muskrat wrote:
What I don't understand is why you think gravitational force is a particle.

Actually, a lot of scientist agree that gravity is acted upon by a particle called the graviton. There is no data that shows it exists, though if you read the article, the next generation of colliders (or the SSC if it wasn't canceled) are predicted to show data that suggests that gravitons exist. Thats correct, they'll record data that shows that a graviton may exist, as they will be measuring and testing for effects that a graviton may do, but the effects they will be measuring and testing for won't be unique to a graviton, thus it won't show that graviton do exist, just that they are more probable to exist.
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:44 pm
Post subject:
They also think light is a partical, although I think it of being far fetched, I have my cons and pros of that theory.
Also, muskrat, if you think about it in a mathimatical way, infinity is really immpossible to reach or even imagen. infinity is infinity, and there is no beginning of it, or no end. Now tell me, what speed your going before, you reach it? As I said, I dislike eistien, except for his atomic and energy theorys.
I might not be good in english, but your arguing with some one, that has been studing this, since he was five years old (the reason I'm not so good in computers, well what explains that is I never even had my first computer, intill five years ago, and I'm already learning programming and networking... ).
Muskrat - Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:17 am
Post subject:
Sorry, used the wrong terminology. When I said a particle I was trying to mean something that has a mass, which a graviton does not.

blah-er, take some calculus classes and you will recognize my "approaches infinity" language. I never said that anything can reach infinity, and in fact you actually hit on my point by mentioning that. Something with a mass cannot go the speed of light in the same way that it's mass cannot reach infinity.
Quan Chi2 - Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:18 am
Post subject:
You all made very plausible points.

Um, but about the fourth dimension, isn't it time?
Muskrat - Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:24 am
Post subject:
Time is usually made the fourth dimension for use of demonstration. For scientific uses more than 3 'dimensions' to an experiment is common. I have a friend who needed to demonstrate 5 dimensions for a presentation in some math class and he used a varying hue of color to represent the change.
K' - Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:17 am
Post subject:
blah-er wrote:
They also think light is a partical,


It is a common concensus that photons are considered both a particle and a wave, you dimwit, as it exhibits both characteristics attributed to each in its behaviour.



The 11th dimension?
Well, one way to describe and/or define it would be something completely different and unperceptable by our scope of comprehension.
Which is to say that the definition of the 11th dimension is something which is beyond our way to define, since it exists entirely beyond our cognitive and imagining ability.
It's...indefineable, and that's the 11th dimension, an undefineable point. lol.
Perhaps the void...or whatever it may be inside of a black hole...all forces nullfication point...the nexus.

The 10th dimension sure outlooks like a sweet place to exist in, with regards to our meager three-dimensional world.
It is quite likely that, 'god' may not be so much of an alien with an evolved biology and/or science to allow it to perform 'miracles' so much that it is a 5th or such higher tier dimension being.
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:29 am
Post subject:
K' wrote:
[..]

r it may be inside of a black hole.



That would be wrong, the theory that a black hole, is a worm hole or something else, is just completely obscured. I've been thinking what the force is in a black hole for quite a while, and I've found it's extreme gravity. If you know all mass has some gravity, and the more mass, the more gravity. When a super nova explodes, all the mass of it collapse in to a black hole, well in the center of that black hole, must be a bunch of mass, so compacted with so much energy. Think of the center as the size of earth, made of something 10,000,000x's denser then titanium.
The reason it gets so bigger, is that when it sucks every thing in, it gets more mass, so it becomes a bigger gravitational force.

Must people would think, then why is light being sucked in? But they don't think, light needs something to be reflected, and the black hole is sucking all the particles that the light is need to reflect, in to the black hole.


I've come up with this on my own, so your not likely to find this theory anywhere, unless I have rethought of something. But it's the must reasonable thing that could be a black hole, and I could keep giving reasons why, but I have hundreds. If some one can find a bug in this theory, go right ahead.
Dr Brain - Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:49 am
Post subject:
MGB, they've been predicting that for years. Yet they've never found one.

My guess is that gravitation is entirely distinct from the other forces. Another clue is the ratio between the electrical and gravitational forces being as large as it is. After all, if they're based upon the same mechanism of messenger particles, then 4.17e42 has to be a fundamental root of the universe.
Mine GO BOOM - Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:03 am
Post subject:
blah-er wrote:
... light needs something to be reflected, and the black hole is sucking all the particles that the light is need to reflect, in to the black hole.
...
If some one can find a bug in this theory, go right ahead.

Wow. I'd recommend you read up a bit on General Relativity.

The simplest way I can try and explain this to you is this little analogy. You are in a paddle boat going down a stream. You can paddle along as 5 MPH. That is your maximum speed. The river merges with another, that has varying speeds listed below. You want to go upstream on this river, at your maximum speed of 5 MPH. If you enter at the left point, you'll be fine and can travel up the river. If you enter at the lower point, you can never overcome the stream's speed, as you are past your event horizon for that stream, which is 5 MPH.



For a black hole, the river is the gravitation field around it. If light happens to cross into this field and go into its own event horizon, it would be trapped and could never go fast enough to leave.
K' - Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:11 am
Post subject:
Are you going to explain to an ant why high-chromosome-count organisms behave as they do?
Such a collosal waste of time and energy...highly inefficient.
(Deactived B l a h e r) - Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:44 am
Post subject:
As I said, I don't agree with eistien's realitivity theory ( I didn't exatly say that exact theory, but I forgot the name at the time.), I think of gravity being more like a magnetical force, and not a curve in space and time.

blah-er wrote:

Also the plane theory, on how he says all the planets rest on a plane, and if you go thought that plane, you go through a wormhole, and can travel at the speed of light to the next end of the plane... Well, he didn't really know exactly how big the universe was, he point of view only went to our galaxy (maybe even just our solar system, but I doubt that), all the galaxy's aren't straight aligned, the revolve in a 3d manner, and since there moving in different directions, that would mean the plane is stretching out.


Time is not really a object, that can be grasped, or see, it's just a way that we use for our visualization and detail.

Also, einstein says somewhere, that there is a dimension for each possibility, which makes no sense. That would mean that there would be {HUGE number here} dimensions creating every nanosecond. Not only does that disprove the tenth dimension stuff, but it also means it disproves the law, that "matter can not be created or destroyed".

Sometimes, it's just better to start at the beginning of things, so you don't get confused with older data, just like in rewriting a program. Think out-side of the box, for once, and recreate it. Just because most people think of something being true, because one person said it was, doesnt mean it is.
Dr Brain - Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:50 pm
Post subject:
blah-er wrote:
As I said, I don't agree with eistien's realitivity theory ( I didn't exatly say that exact theory, but I forgot the name at the time.), I think of gravity being more like a magnetical force, and not a curve in space and time.


Ever actually studied relativity? Or are you basing all of this of of your 8th grade understanding of physics? By the way, the comparison with magnetism is flawed at the very core, with the total lack of any magnetic charge (not dipoles). Comparison with the electrostatic force would be more valid.

blah-er wrote:
Time is not really a object, that can be grasped, or see, it's just a way that we use for our visualization and detail.


Object != dimension

blah-er wrote:
Also, einstein says somewhere, that there is a dimension for each possibility, which makes no sense. That would mean that there would be {HUGE number here} dimensions creating every nanosecond. Not only does that disprove the tenth dimension stuff, but it also means it disproves the law, that "matter can not be created or destroyed".


You're mistaking a reality for a dimension. You would only need a couple of extra dimensions for the forks required for the mulitverse theory.

blah-er wrote:
Sometimes, it's just better to start at the beginning of things, so you don't get confused with older data, just like in rewriting a program. Think out-side of the box, for once, and recreate it. Just because most people think of something being true, because one person said it was, doesnt mean it is.


You think we believe in physics because someone said it?
Mine GO BOOM - Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:33 pm
Post subject:
blah-er wrote:
Also, einstien says somewhere, that there is a dimension for each possibility, which makes no sense. That would mean that there would be {HUGE number here} dimensions creating every nanosecond. Not only does that disprove the tenth dimension stuff, but it also means it disproves the law, that "matter can not be created or destroyed".

Not saying I agree with the unlimited multiverse possibility, but who said they have to be created at the time of the choice? Going with the uncertainty principle, objects are in indeterminate states until we observe them. The idea is, that there are near or truly unlimited multiverses, by observing an object, we jump to a universe where that object is at. Once we look away, we don't know where the object is until we look at it again and make it appear. Otherwise, it is in all possible spots at all possible times. New multiverses are not created, we just focus in on one at a time each time we observe an object.

Einstein only went as far as four dimensions. He never liked quantum theories, which predicted most of the topics you are discussing. He believed in God heavily. You might have heard a quote from him, "God does not play dice with the universe."

If possible, even though I know most of your discussion is unique as you are the one conducting the thought experiment, please bring in some outside source material. You are going up against a behemoth of data. Quantum Mechanic's predictions, be it very unusual, have been highly accurate. But then again, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." (Einstein)

Creation and Quantum Mechanics by Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D.
Quote:
December 14, 1900, is called the birthday of quantum mechanics. On this date German physicist Max Planck first presented his new quantum concepts. At this time it was generally thought that the classical physics of Isaac Newton fully explained all the physical processes of nature. Planck instead showed that many deep mysteries remained. For the past century, scientists have struggled with the meaning and implications of quantum mechanics. There are several different quantum interpretations, some of them quite philosophical. Certain experimental results agree with quantum theory to astounding accuracy. Other quantum predictions appear to defy common sense. A few scientists, both secular and creationist, reject the validity of quantum mechanics entirely. Creationist Thomas Barnes has offered one alternative model (Barnes, 1983).
Quan Chi2 - Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:18 pm
Post subject:
I thought that time was an object because it has dimensions.
K' - Fri Jul 28, 2006 2:44 am
Post subject:
blah-er, please go fetch me a formula for the exact location of an electron at a given time, don't return until you do.
Mine GO BOOM - Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:50 am
Post subject:
K' wrote:
blah-er, please go fetch me a formula for the exact location of an electron at a given time, don't return until you do.

There is an electron sitting exactly three feet, 2 inches to the left of the dead center of my monitor at the exact moment of this post. Of course, I have no idea how fast it is moving or which direction, but there is one there at that exact location at this exact time.
K' - Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:15 am
Post subject:
Fabulous...now predict its trajectory.
All times are -5 GMT
View topic
Powered by phpBB 2.0 .0.11 © 2001 phpBB Group